profiler-load

Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It covers the core disk-to-memory restore behavior, return types for each mode, failure cases when data is missing, and the special app_process handling for older Android sessions. It stops short of specifying what happens to previously loaded sessions or cache keys, but the main operational behavior is clearly conveyed.

Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.

Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?

The description is well-structured and front-loaded: the main purpose is stated first, followed by differentiation, usage guidance, a scannable mode list, and failure conditions. Each sentence contributes operational or decision-making value without unnecessary repetition.

Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.

Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?

For a tool with five parameters, three modes, no output schema, and no annotations, the description is sufficiently complete. It explains what the tool does, when to use it, what each mode does, what inputs are required for each mode, what it returns, and when it fails. This gives the agent enough context to select and invoke the tool correctly.

Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.

Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?

Schema description coverage is 100%, so the baseline is 3 even with no extra parameter semantics in the description. The description does add some mode-level context around session_id, device_id, and app_process, but most parameter meaning is already fully captured in the input schema. It does not significantly go beyond the schema.

Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.

Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?

The description opens with a specific verb and resource: 'Fetch and restore a previously captured profiling session from disk into memory.' It clearly distinguishes itself from sibling tools by naming the write-side tools (react-profiler-stop/native-profiler-stop) and the read-side query tools (profiler-cpu-query, profiler-commit-query, profiler-stack-query), and by listing its three modes.

Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.

Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?

Explicitly states when to use the tool: 'Use when you need to revisit past session data without capturing a new recording.' It also provides mode-specific prerequisites (session_id for load_react/load_native, device_id for load_native, app_process for older Android sessions) and describes failure conditions, giving the agent clear decision guidance versus alternatives.

Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.